Moscow Wary About Tashkent Military Ties With the United States

The image of World War II anti-fascist coalition appears repeatedly in both American and Russian media as a role model for today's cooperation between Moscow and Washington in fighting the Taliban. However, some observers say that if a World War II analogy is at all pertinent to today's anti-terrorism campaign, it mostly pertains to developments during the last months of the war against Hitler, when the US and Soviet armies suspiciously eyed each other's troop movements in theatres of operations.

Many Russian political commentators are scrutinizing the end game of the war in Europe in 1945 for possible lessons that could apply to the anti-terrorism coalition's campaign in Afghanistan. They are also sifting for clues about the possible future geopolitical look of Central Asia. So far, it appears that most Russian analysts don't like what they see - an increased US profile in what has traditionally been Moscow's backyard.

"The Allies in the anti-fascist coalition [in 1945] agreed on the post-war spheres of influence, yet the last say belonged to the military," writes Sanobar Shermatova in the Moskovskie Novosti weekly. If a historic analogy is to be applied, she continues, contemporary partners in the struggle against global terrorism will eventually establish control over those chunks of Central Asia that they manage to "seize" during the current campaign.

In light of this, Moscow strategists cannot fail to be alarmed by what the American media calls the "new military partnership" between Tashkent and Washington. [See the Eurasia Insight archives]. Around 1,000 US troops have already been deployed at Khanabad, an Uzbek military base 90 miles from the Afghan border, which was one of the main military outposts during the Soviet operations against Afghan mujahedeen in the 1980s. It is the first time ever that American servicemen have deployed on the territory of the former Soviet Union.

Besides the US military presence in Uzbekistan, Russian media, citing well-informed sources in Tashkent, say that US B-52 bombers are flying from a base at Diego Garcia to carry out air raids on the Taliban targets in Afghanistan, then landing at Khanabad to refuel. After having some rest there, the American pilots then return to their base in the Indian Ocean. Some Russian commentators stress that by rendering such support, the Uzbek leadership is, in fact, cooperating with Washington not only in humanitarian and search-and-rescue operations but also "fully participating in the US strategic aviation's fulfillment of its combat mission." This aspect of the Uzbek-American military cooperation, Moscow journalists assert, is guarded as "top secret" by Tashkent authorities.

"Karimov is sitting on two chairs," writes the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper. "He doesn't want to spoil relations with Russia, but at the same time is actively moving closer to the United States."

Some Russian media outlets argue that the new realignment of forces in Central Asia adversely affects the organizations which were formed prior to the crisis, namely the Shanghai Organization For Cooperation comprising Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Moscow observers now tend to place special emphasis on the defense aspect of this alliance, and lament that it is currently being undermined. "The Shanghai Six in its current shape ceases to exist," claims the web newspaper Vesti.Ru in an article under the telltale heading "Islam [Karimov] Changes Orientation."

"The reason is obvious: two of its members have actually dropped out. President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov and president of Tajikistan Imomali Rahmonov re-oriented themselves toward the United States and stepped under the American [security] umbrella."

The rabidly nationalist Moscow newspaper Zavtra, commenting on the new US-Uzbek strategic ties, bluntly calls Uzbekistan "America's Asiatic state." Although the mainstream Russian press does not use that type of language, it also expresses concern about the rapprochement between Washington and Tashkent. The liberal Moscow weekly Obshchaya Gazeta seems to be deeply perturbed by the question of how long the Americans might stay in Uzbekistan. In extensive coverage of Central Asia, the paper quotes an unnamed Russian diplomat posted in Tashkent, who "is afraid [Americans] will never leave. They will provide Uzbeks with some investment, turn a blind eye to the mass arrests of Islamists, censorship of mass media, mined borders with the CIS neighbors. Also, they will immediately start to strengthen GUUAM - the string of countries that stretches parallel to some rogue states and Russia's most important communication lines."

The irony of the current situation lies in the fact that Moscow and Washington seem to have swapped positions regarding the issue of the human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. Some recent articles in the American press recognize that, after the terrorist attacks in the United States, American officials have eased pressure on Uzbek authorities to observe basic human rights norms. At the same time, Russian media have started - especially after the talks between Karimov and US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in Tashkent - to criticize Karimov's crackdown on religious freedom.

The Russian observers now willingly argue that the main cause for the growth of Islamist influence is not outside support, but rather the grave economic and social conditions within Uzbekistan. Moscow analysts also note that the Tashkent authorities lack any clear-cut policy toward radicalized segments of the Uzbek population. Very symptomatic in this respect is the recent article posted on the web site MIGnews titled: "Is the Islamist Threat to Uzbekistan Real?" This piece contends that during the entire period of the country's independence, Karimov appealed to Islamic spirituality and Muslim culture as part of his state-building efforts. On the other hand, though, he imposed complete state control over religious worship in Uzbekistan. Mosques are now deprived of economic and financial independence, and are infested with state security informants. Karimov himself has usurped the exclusive right to define what kind of "true Islam" is permissible in Uzbekistan, the article contends.

All this, the article goes on to argue, angers the nation's believers. The concluding passage of this piece drives the message home: "Uzbekistan's joining the anti-Taliban coalition and openly providing the Americans with the military bases for their combat operations can easily radicalize the Islamic community in Uzbekistan, and cause the violent outburst of the anti-government sentiments."

Other Moscow commentators believe a possible threat of direct involvement in the conflict with the Taliban will force Karimov to walk a fine line between Russia and the United States. In an interview with the web publication Strana.Ru, an expert on Central Asia at the Moscow-based Memorial human rights center, Vitali Ponomaryov, notes that Karimov is well aware of how much a sizable portion of Uzbek Muslims dislike the idea of fighting the co-religionists in Afghanistan. "For official Tashkent," says Ponomaryov, "any conflict is not dangerous per se but rather as a possible catalyst prompting further internal destabilization."

Ponomaryov considers a lasting alliance between Tashkent and Washington highly unlikely. "After all, Uzbekistan has a rather repressive political regime, and the West is not prepared to turn a blind eye to this fact even for the sake of the antiterrorist coalition's success," he said.